Do you want Ted Thompson to be extended?· Page 21

dfosterf
Veteran Member

10 years ago

No.

I am now going to go back and read the 14 pages posted to date on this thread, on this subject. He is not flexible enough, imo.

Edit- No I am not going to read those 14 pages, it was driving me insane. I want to keep MM, I don't feel Ted Thompson. That's my vote.

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#202

TT has two more years. He will leave with one ring, IMO. Who knows, though? Maybe, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick will both suffer season ending injuries and no other team will rise up over our good talent level? Maybe, we'll get some lucky bounces or official's calls? See, it's sad to rely on things like that when you have the best QB in the game. You should come into the season thinking every team in the NFL will be lucky to compete with you. It's the opposite.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Realistically.. I think offensively, we have a chance to be the best. If Daniels continues to develop and Raji can return to form in the middle.. along with Matthews staying healthy.. I think we can compete talent wise with just about anyone.

Will we win it all.. the variables are so vast it is impossible to lay that claim down. But I think we have the talent to do so if we can remain healthier than the past two season.

Additionally, the final roster isn't complete at the moment.. there may be a pickup or trade that greatly affects the team. And it may not seem big at the moment but pay dividends ala Ryan Grant. Or Grady Jackson.

Oh.. and yes.. trading two 1st's for a TE would have overtaken the talent gap this year and the next couple. [grin1]

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#203

No.

I am now going to go back and read the 14 pages posted to date on this thread, on this subject. He is not flexible enough, imo.

Originally Posted by: dfosterf

I think almost anyone thinks he has underplayed the free agent market. So I can concur with the flexible statement. Although if Peppers has anything left.. it may be another Woodson verse a Saturday.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#204

To have the best QB in the NFL and fail over and over and get one ring is not enough.

I just have a whole less hope than you because our GM is content to ride Aaron Rodgers because it worked ONCE.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

The last 5 NFL seasons, there have been 10 unique teams in the Super Bowl. If there is some other model out there that is clearly superior which the Packers aren't utilizing, then fine, do that but these past 5 seasons have shown that's not the case.

Ted's job is to equip the Packers with the personnel to win, and for reasons I've stated along with some of Pack93z's recent posts, I feel he generally has. Yes he's left some positions open, but every GM is going to have to take calculated risks at some positions. You can't pay to have an All Pro at every position, you'll eventually have to hope some rookies or unproven talent will excel at key positions. The Packers let GJ go hoping Boykin and the others could get the job done. It worked. Ted hoped MD could get it done at saftey, he was wrong.

There are 31 teams each year that didn't quite get all of those calculated gambles right. It doesn't have to mean you blow up the ship, and it doesn't have to mean you're settling for good enough if you don't make big changes.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#205

Originally Posted by: musccy

Just think what this team is minus Aaron Rodgers when you hail TT's generally good performance. His generally good performance is actually pretty substandard minus him. Oh, I know... RC18, Finley and Clay were also out... 2-5-1. If not for the miracle at Dallas 1-6-1. Heck, we barely beat dreadful Atlanta in our yard...but we almost got the brutal Steelers so I suppose that evens one of them.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#206

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Take away any team's top-tier QB and what happens? The Packers are using roughly 15% of their salary cap for that one player, which hurts what they can do at other positions. Of course they'll take a hit when he goes down.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#207

Originally Posted by: musccy

Yes, they will...but should it be to the point where we barely win a game against some of the worst teams in the NFL?

The Minnesota Vikings are best set up to be the dominant force in the NFC based on their rookie QB who is taking just a little over 1.2 million in cap space. If he is any good the division should be theirs for the next few seasons. The Packers, Bears and Lions have a lot of money committed to their starting QB's. The Vikes don't so with all that extra cash they should be the best team minus the QB and if the QB is good to better than good look out NFCN.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#208

The Minnesota Vikings are best set up to be the dominant force in the NFC based on their rookie QB who is taking just a little over 1.2 million in cap space. If he is any good the division should be theirs for the next few seasons. The Packers, Bears and Lions have a lot of money committed to their starting QB's. The Vikes don't so with all that extra cash they should be the best team minus the QB and if the QB is good to better than good look out NFCN.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

It worked for the 49'ers and Seahawks.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#209

It worked for the 49'ers and Seahawks.

Originally Posted by: musccy

It absolutely did... that is what is so upsetting...our window where Rodgers wasn't so highly paid is a distant memory. We didn't do enough then to win while we had this advantage.

Doing it now is only that much harder and one of the many reasons I don't think we'll see another ring under Rodgers. It is also why it drives me nutty reading stuff about affecting Aaron's good years. Those are over to a certain extent. We'll never have him at an MVP level with that kind of salary ever again.

The Niners didn't get their one... The Seahawks did. Let's see how this plays out between all these franchises and throw NY in there, too. Eli has a couple. That is sad that Eli Manning has more rings than Aaron Rodgers.

Will you consider Ted Thompson's regime a failure if we fail (no SB appearances) in the playoffs the next two years and he retires? I don't even have to tell you what I think about that.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#210

I can't say if I'd consider it a failure or not. I don't view a season that way, meaning you have to factor in coaching, health, luck, and execution, all factors we couldn't assess (yet). Raji demonstrated he's capable of playing at a high level, but if he fails this year, with the position change, that's on him. It's just one example of how it's difficult to attribute all success/failures at the feet of one coach or GM. Not to say you can't blame them for trends over time, I'm just saying why I couldn't say if I'd consider it ted's failure or not.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (18m) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (19m) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (29m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (41m) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (51m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (1h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (1h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (2h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (2h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (2h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (5h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (5h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (5h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (5h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (5h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (5h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (5h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (5h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (5h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (5h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (5h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (5h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (6h) : Packers will get in

beast (6h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (6h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (6h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (9h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (9h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (9h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (19h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS